Search

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) support individual and population health by translating new, evidence-based knowledge into recommendations for health practice. CPGs can be provided as computable, machine-readable guidelines that support the translation of recommendations into shareable, interoperable clinical decision support and other digital tools (eg, quality measures, case reports, care plans). Interdisciplinary collaboration among guideline developers and health information technology experts can facilitate the translation of written guidelines into computable ones. The benefits of interdisciplinary work include a focus on the needs of end-users who apply guidelines in practice through clinic decision support systems as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Adapting Clinical Guidelines for the Digital Age (ACG) initiative, a group of interdisciplinary experts proposed a process to facilitate the codevelopment of written and computable CPGs, referred to as the "integrated process (IP)."1 This paper presents a framework for evaluating the IP based on a combination of vetted evaluation models and expert opinions. This framework combines 3 types of evaluations: process, product, and outcomes. These evaluations assess the value of interdisciplinary expert collaboration in carrying out the IP, the quality, usefulness, timeliness, and acceptance of the guideline, and the guideline's health impact, respectively. A case study is presented that illustrates application of the framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CDC's 2006 recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing state that all persons aged 13-64 years should be screened for HIV at least once, and that persons at higher risk for HIV infection, including sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM), should be rescreened at least annually (1). Authors of reports published since 2006, including CDC (2), suggested that MSM, a group that is at highest risk for HIV infection, might benefit from being screened more frequently than once each year. In 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to specify an HIV rescreening interval but recommended annual screening for MSM as a reasonable approach (3). However, some HIV providers have begun to offer more frequent screening, such as once every 3 or 6 months, to some MSM. A CDC work group conducted a systematic literature review and held four expert consultations to review programmatic experience to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to change the 2006 CDC recommendation (i.e., at least annual HIV screening of MSM in clinical settings). The CDC work group concluded that the evidence remains insufficient to recommend screening more frequently than at least once each year. CDC continues to recommend that clinicians screen asymptomatic sexually active MSM at least annually. Each clinician can consider the benefits of offering more frequent screening (e.g., once every 3 or 6 months) to individual MSM at increased risk for acquiring HIV infection, weighing their patients' individual risk factors, local HIV epidemiology, and local testing policies.